52 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

The endings are pretty poor to be fair.

There are though a few things, a few other major things wrong with the game.  

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=TFq531vkNOY

[Rosstoration]

Destroy = Destroys the Reapers, and the Geth for some arbitrary reason. Pretty easy choice.

 

Synthesis is just abhorrent and Control is lame and dangerous.

[Coyotebay]

For me there were always two choices, either you destroy the Reapers (The Anderson principle), or you control and exploit the Reapers (the TIM principle).  Adding Door Number Three, merging with the Reapers (the Starbrat principle) just came out of nowhere and was a ridiculous and unnecessary alternate ending that was just tacked on.  If they had just ended ME3 in that control room with Anderson and TIM it would have been a fine ending (if imperfect, I mean, how the hell did those two guys get in there?).  As for the rest of the outcomes, I destroyed the Geth because I didn't have the influence points to get the peace option.  I was okay with that.  We all want the "perfect" outcome, but even after the Geth had won their freedom and taken the Quarian's home world from them, it just wasn't good enough.  No, they had to exterminate the Quarians, so screw them.  And Miranda never made it to ME3 alive for me because she was a ******, so screw her too, lol.

 

 

And then we have Destroy. It's the simplest and the most straight-forward, but with the greatest cost. While we get rid of the Reapers once and for all, and Shepard lives, it comes at the cost of the only friendly synthetics we've ever known: the Geth and EDI. If we lose them, what happens then? Do we simply avoid making new AI? We know this is inevitable. And what if we make the same mistakes again? The pattern has repeated itself time and time again. What if the Geth and EDI are the one in a billion shot we have for a true peace between organics and synthetics, and Shepard decides to blow it by choosing Destroy. What kind of example would that set for future AI, should they find out what organics decided to do to their AI ancestors when it came down to it?

 

I know some people have a different opinion, but I never bought into the whole organic vs synthetic theme.  Sure there's been some conflicts between organics and synthetics, but mostly the story takes what the Reapers say at face value about synthetics always wiping out organics.  Who knows with them, I wouldn't believe a word they say, lol.  Conflict comes in many forms, and in the story you see it with the Krogan and the Rachni as well as the Geth.  I also think that Mass Effect paints the whole organic vs synthetic issue with a very broad brush.  In reality it would be much more complex, especially since you would have organics, synthetics, and everything in between, with many different factions, alliances, etc.  The continued existence and evolution of both synthetic and organic life would be considered necessary by many on both sides. 

 

What the Destroy option does that is most significant is that it destroys the relays, which many may think a bad thing, but might actually be a blessing in disguise, as it allows for races in different parts of the galaxy to evolve and advance independently of each other and reduce the chance of one of them running roughshod over the whole galaxy, at least for a very very long time.

[aoibhealfae]

Destroy = Kill that brat.... the end.

[sveners]

It occurs to me that many people listen to the Catalyst, the same way others read Bibles.

Cherrypicking the things they like, and dismiss the rest.

[Fixers0]

It occurs to me that many people listen to the Catalyst, the same way others read Bibles.

Cherrypicking the things they like, and dismiss the rest.

 

That's why I always pick destroy. I'm not confident that shooting a random power tube is gonna kill the Reapers, but it's worth trying.

[Dantriges]

If you don´t meta (we know that the catalyst is telling the truth because we see the aftermath) and assume that the catalyst could be lying, shooting the power tube would be a bad idea. Ok Hackett said the Crucible isn´t doing anything but we see a beam somewhere. Perhaps it just needs more time to work the magic.   So could be that he told you three ways of how to sabotage the Crucible. Why does the Catalyst want you to sabotage it? Could be that you are the only one in range to do it, before he keels over and gets erased. The only other entities we saw, are keepers and could be they are too far away (they aren´t fast) or that the Crucible blocked the  ability of the Citadel to issue commands to them. The guys who found out that you need the Citadel for the Crucible probably knew about the Keepers being reaper constructs.

 

Sounds a bit farfetched but what´s more likely? That Lord Sauron is letting you inside his keep and tells you how to use the ring and kill him or that he´s lying. I mean right in this moment his troops are shooting at yours.

 

So if you play for the first time (without checking the net) or you roleplay Shepard that he only has the info he got up to this point, you know nothing Jon Snow Shepard.

 

That´s what you get for Bioware trying to be deep, philosophical and doing "art."

[Batarian Master Race]

I know some people have a different opinion, but I never bought into the whole organic vs synthetic theme.  Sure there's been some conflicts between organics and synthetics, but mostly the story takes what the Reapers say at face value about synthetics always wiping out organics.  Who knows with them, I wouldn't believe a word they say, lol.  Conflict comes in many forms, and in the story you see it with the Krogan and the Rachni as well as the Geth.  I also think that Mass Effect paints the whole organic vs synthetic issue with a very broad brush.  In reality it would be much more complex, especially since you would have organics, synthetics, and everything in between, with many different factions, alliances, etc.  The continued existence and evolution of both synthetic and organic life would be considered necessary by many on both sides. 

I agree wholeheartedly. EDI's arc and Legion's existence showed us that synthetics aren't that much different from us. They're not a hivemind, no more than the Krogan, Asari, Turians, Etc. are all once race. There's so many more sides in the fight than just organics vs synthetics, and to dumb it down to a global overreaching theme, especially one with such little justification (other than the Starbrat telling us it had always happened that way, and thus must always happen that way) is a cop-out to say the least.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

I know some people have a different opinion, but I never bought into the whole organic vs synthetic theme.  Sure there's been some conflicts between organics and synthetics, but mostly the story takes what the Reapers say at face value about synthetics always wiping out organics.  Who knows with them, I wouldn't believe a word they say, lol.  Conflict comes in many forms, and in the story you see it with the Krogan and the Rachni as well as the Geth.  I also think that Mass Effect paints the whole organic vs synthetic issue with a very broad brush.  In reality it would be much more complex, especially since you would have organics, synthetics, and everything in between, with many different factions, alliances, etc.  The continued existence and evolution of both synthetic and organic life would be considered necessary by many on both sides. 

 

 

I agree. Organic vs Synthetic only felt like a theme in the most superficial way possible: there were robots in the series and sometimes they got into fights with non-robots. It felt as much as a theme as something like people vs zombies. The game never in any dedicated way used the conflicts to actual explore the tensions that could occur between two such alien beings; the deepest it ever gets into exploring the issue is with Xen who's views deal with the Geth being created beings designed to serve the Quarians in very specific ways. In that way it feels more like a motif. I'm think I'm going to regret using this word, but the AI always seem there to explore something else, much like how zombies aren't there to explore the metaphysical tension that exists between the living and the undead.

 

So, much of the game actually seems to be trying to establish the opposite. Take, for example, EDI's and Joker's relationship in ME3. That would be the perfect opportunity to explore these issues in depth, that despite the two sides having the largest motivation to make a relationship work, the underlying differences are ultimately too much to overcome. That would really set up Synthesis as the only solution to peace, the only way that Joker and EDI could find love. Instead you have EDI's social awkwardness -- which happens in every relationship in this game (maybe you could say EDI's medal body poses a larger threat to

Joker's health than a human woman who might be a bit softer). And I think that's point. The game tries so hard to paint everyone as the same and just uses AI as the physical extreme, that even if you have metal skin, circuits, and processors the source of conflict is still the same (assuming you keep the Geth alive their last words are very positive). There's nothing wrong with that (I certainly like that stuff), but it makes the ending all the more jarring when it flips the switch, especially after already putting what depth did exist to rest with Rannoch and EDI's character arc.

 

So, I don't think the ending, or the series, works as an exploration of organic vs Synthetics; in fact, the ending kind of highlights how much it doesn't work. Although maybe that's the point...

[AlanC9]

If you don´t meta (we know that the catalyst is telling the truth because we see the aftermath) and assume that the catalyst could be lying, shooting the power tube would be a bad idea. Ok Hackett said the Crucible isn´t doing anything but we see a beam somewhere. Perhaps it just needs more time to work the magic. So could be that he told you three ways of how to sabotage the Crucible. Why does the Catalyst want you to sabotage it? Could be that you are the only one in range to do it, before he keels over and gets erased. The only other entities we saw, are keepers and could be they are too far away (they aren´t fast) or that the Crucible blocked the ability of the Citadel to issue commands to them. The guys who found out that you need the Citadel for the Crucible probably knew about the Keepers being reaper constructs.

Of course, few of us are serious enough role-players to follow this argument all the way to Refuse. They do what Fixers0 did above, and believe just enough of the Catalys's dialogue to get to the result they want. Pretty much what sveners said.

[Dantriges]

Of course, few of us are serious enough role-players to follow this argument all the way to Refuse. They do what Fixers0 did above, and believe just enough of the Catalys's dialogue to get to the result they want. Pretty much what sveners said.

 

Oh that´s the fun part. At least it would be if it was a PnP campaign. That´s when the DM is throwing a hissy fit and the arguments at the table get heated.

 

On a serious note, you should be able to pick another ending when Starbrat goes "You don´t wanna play, I smash your toys." Yeah i saw the thing shut down. So the Crucible has enough power to rewrite the galaxy but not enough to stay in standby mode for another 5 minutes? That´s a very specific power level. Seems starkid found the off switch. Turn it back on please, your blackmail worked.

 

And well you still take starkid by his word in the Refuse ending. You are doing grand speech before the lights go out. Yeah fine. The "you make no sense" option is still missing and that´s after BW got tons of feedback.

 

Ok the point was, that you actually have nothing to make a decision. You don´t know if the thing is working or not, Hackett´s message implies that it doesn´t but the instruction manual is handed to you by the enemy. 

[Jay P]

As has been mentioned, the issues with the ending were more in execution: the reliance and acceptance of what had seemed an adversarial entity; and the hasty epilogue once the final choice had been made.

It always felt incomplete to me. It showed you the endings, but they came off as flat. I didn't really feel their impact, or I didn't as much as I thought I would.

The Mass Effect series might be my favorite series of all time and ME2 is one of my top 3 favorite games of all time (along with Planescape: Torment).

But the ending of the first trilogy just felt so abrupt. After having spent the previous two games letting me experience the world and the consequences of my actions, it felt like they were just giving me a quick show, and that was it.

Spoiler

I only completed ME3 once. I probably completed ME1 at least 5 times and ME2 more than I care to admit. ME3 just didn't rise to the same level. And I completed near release. So any of the DLC or additions I didn't experience.

Edit: I still prefer the indoctrinated ending. I know it kind f goes against the spirit of the game, and games in general, but it was always the ending that made the most sense to me. Shepard eventually succumbs to indoctrination, he has the illusion of these choices, but in reality the reapers are merely beginning their cycle again. I understand why the game can't end that way, but it has always felt the most right to me.

[God]

It occurs to me that many people listen to the Catalyst, the same way others read Bibles.

Cherrypicking the things they like, and dismiss the rest.

 

I certainly don't do that. I listen to the Catalyst because it presents information. I can at least listen to and observe that information. I don't doubt that the Catalyst is manipulative and biased to an extent, but it isn't inherently evil. And what it says is true. Going by a strict logical doctrine that an AI has been given that neglects several Asimov principles (so to speak) of AI meant that the entire Reaper solution isn't going to be that great when looking at it from an emotive standpoint.

 

I also think it's unfair that you say that the people who listen to the Reapers are blindly accepting their position. We're not fundamentalists, if that's what we're saying. If that were the case, don't you think that all those who immediately reject the Catalyst on principle, without giving any thought to its position as 'evil lies' is not analogous to fundamentalist Christians who reject scientific evidence and information on principle because it doesn't adhere to their extremely parochial worldview as dictated by their interpretation of a set of rules in a part of the Bible that often contradicts the other parts and isn't altogether coherent or applicable to modern 21st century life?

[prosthetic soul]

I certainly don't do that. I listen to the Catalyst because it presents information. I can at least listen to and observe that information. I don't doubt that the Catalyst is manipulative and biased to an extent, but it isn't inherently evil. And what it says is true. Going by a strict logical doctrine that an AI has been given that neglects several Asimov principles (so to speak) of AI meant that the entire Reaper solution isn't going to be that great when looking at it from an emotive standpoint.

 

I also think it's unfair that you say that the people who listen to the Reapers are blindly accepting their position. We're not fundamentalists, if that's what we're saying. If that were the case, don't you think that all those who immediately reject the Catalyst on principle, without giving any thought to its position as 'evil lies' is not analogous to fundamentalist Christians who reject scientific evidence and information on principle because it doesn't adhere to their extremely parochial worldview as dictated by their interpretation of a set of rules in a part of the Bible that often contradicts the other parts and isn't altogether coherent or applicable to modern 21st century life?

 

The Catalyst is not only evil, it's logic is full of holes and fallacies and its very existence is laughable.  Starbrat (Calling it the catalyst is overplaying its significance by about 100%).  It compares the Reapers' galaxy wide extermination of all intelligent life to an uncontrollable wildfire.  Let me repeat that:

 

Starbrat compared to the systematic killing/genocide of every organic species in the Milky Way capable of higher thought to a CHEMICAL REACTION. 

 

Sorry false god  but that logic just won't fly.  The Starbrat is evil in the same as if a toaster oven suddenly gains sentience and decides to kill every person present in the household. 

[God]

The Catalyst is not only evil, it's logic is full of holes and fallacies and its very existence is laughable.  Starbrat (Calling it the catalyst is overplaying its significance by about 100%).  It compares the Reapers' galaxy wide extermination of all intelligent life to an uncontrollable wildfire.  Let me repeat that:

 

Starbrat compared to the systematic killing/genocide of every organic species in the Milky Way capable of higher thought to a CHEMICAL REACTION. 

 

Sorry false god  but that logic just won't fly.  The Starbrat is evil in the same as if a toaster oven suddenly gains sentience and decides to kill every person present in the household. 

 

You know, your reaction is a lot the same as the vehement climate change deniers or YEC's shooting down how humans can be the cause of global warming or how we evolved over the course of 4.5 billion years.

 

The Catalyst is not evil. It requires a rather parochial understanding of ethics and morality, and a certain inflexibility in that regard, to come to such an objective conclusion (which hardly fits any non physically-observable event). 

 

As for how the logic of the Catalyst is full of holes and fallacies, you'll have to elaborate. Or, as I expect, hurl insults at me while claiming I'm doing the very same. 

 

As well, you've already failed a spot-check for an argument by claiming deductively false the argument of the Catalyst for a matter that is more or less inductive in logical framing, and largely impossible to define as deductive in the context of continuing time. That alone breaks your argument. One poor analogy does not break an argument, nor does a fallacy.

 

Hence, you commit the fallacy fallacy.

 

I rather think that you're terrified at the idea that the Catalyst is correct, because it would imply that your worldview is not sufficient or adaptable enough to survive such complex information. That's why you're so vehement of an anti-ender. Because the ending forces a truth upon you, one that you don't seem to be willing or able to understand. You don't like how it means that what you think is right isn't so beyond a subjective, contextual stream.

 

Whereas mine is only confirmed more by what is put in the ending. A subjective world with realist principles of comparison, and a utilitarian authoritarian ideology that works to evolve to godhood. 

[God]

Okay, I think I see the problem here.  God seems to be suffering from a massive case of Jargon-lover's Syndrome and speaking like he just got out of a college-level  sociology class.  You compared to me a global warming-denier.  How exactly does that fit in the context of what we're talking about?  At all?  Not only do I not deny global warming exists but even if I did, it literally has no relevance to what we're talking about, right here and now.  Did you just get done watching Bill Maher or something? Because it sounds you're parroting stuff you heard on TV without actually knowing what you're saying.

 

 

You don't, but it's not my place or onus to educate you. You're essentially stating that since I use large words and 'jargon-lover' speech that I'm to be attacked. To be fair, I have knowledge of many of these topics due to, of course, my experiences in College. If you did as well, then you would understand the applicability of such terms. They're not just for arguing with silly people in a classroom. They work here on the internet as well (case in point, this discussion.)

 

In short, don't blame me if I'm arguing circles around you. 

 

How exactly does me drawing a comparison from your reactions to Climate Change Deniers and YEC (That's young-earth Creationists) come into play? Simple. I state that your level of understanding of my points (let alone your understanding of the ending) is analogous to the level of understanding a CCD has towards evidence that directly contradicts him, and it is analogous to the level of understanding a YEC would have of biological evolutionary theory. Which is to say rather woeful.

 

That you didn't catch that I was drawing an analogy, and instead interpreting my statement literally says quite enough of your argumentative (and thus logical) capabilities.

 

^

What the hell does this even mean? Are you spouting jargon just for the hell of it?  What was the point of this sentence?

 

 

Should I take the slow wording argument?

 

Let's take it slow.

 

'It' is a pronoun. 'It' in the context being used refers to the type of irrational world view taken by you in the sense that you have a penchants for discarding ideology that you don't like or agree with, and how it requires subconscious or conscious changing of your perception of reality that distorts it from the norm (and thus the rational).

 

'Requires' means that your worldview needs several assumptions about morality and ethics, specifically ones that aren't technically verifiable or objective or based in rationality, and applying them to the context of how you're voicing your worldview.

 

'A rather' is more polite shorthand for 'large amount', 'not inconsiderable amount', 'unrealistically large', etc.

 

'Parochial', bear with me since we're getting into some relatively hard words, means 'limited, narrow outlook or scope'. In this context, it refers to your worldview.

 

'Understanding' means comprehension, apprehension, grasp, mastery, or appreciation. In this context, it's a functional oxymoron when referring to your worldview.

 

'Ethics' are moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. In the context of my sentence, it refers to the limited nature of actions that your world view allows you to find applicable to the ending.

 

'Morality' refers to the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. In context, it means that your morality has a limited function that does not adapt or encompass the altering and differentiating factor provided by the Catalyst and the Reapers. This means that you aren't able to process or understand that they operate on an entirely different level in terms of morality from you. They don't subscribe to or commit to your morality, nor are they bound by it.

 

'Inflexibility' means non-changing, unbending, not breaking, and, in this context, not willing to change or cede the point to an argument. You're not willing to allow any kind of information from the Catalyst to penetrate your dogma that you've created and soiled yourself with. 

 

Altogether, the sentence means that you have to have a very rigid and unchanging worldview that will not allow for compromises or changes, however needed or truthful, to cling to the preconceived notions and ideology of what you think is good or bad. It's not a healthy mindset.

 

....Really? Did you really just type that with a straight face? Now I KNOW you're ****ing with me.

 

And no, I think the Starbrat is evil because....the Starbrat is a horribly written character that has literally no place in the Mass Effect universe.  Its logic defies common sense, common reasoning and all logic.  Its mere existence is an affront to coherent writing everywhere.  There is no truth to what the Starbrat says because what it says is verbal feces.  The fact that you even condone it appearing in the game is testament to your probable stupidity.

 

 

Yes, I did type that with a straight face. But rest assured, I have been screwing with you for quite a while. It's easy, and somewhat amusing, if irritating. 

 

You say: "I think the Catalyst is evil because... the Catalyst is horribly written and has no place in the universe!" 

 

To that, I ask "Why?" 

 

Why do you think the Catalyst has no place in the universe? 

 

Why do you think he's poorly written?

 

Why do you think its logic defies common sense?

 

Why do you think its logic defies common reasoning and logic?

 

How is its 'mere existence' an affront to coherent writing everywhere?

 

You're not proclaiming why what the Catalyst is saying is wrong or false, only that it is. This is not a rational position, or a valid argument. It is, in fact, deductively false.

 

To all of these questions, not once have you given a response to the why, simply that they are. Your response has been, entirely 'It's wrong because I don't like it, and I don't like it because its wrong!' All you're doing is begging the question for each of them.

 

You're saying that the Catalyst is false not because it is false, but because you want it to be false. Because acknowledging that it might have a point means that you have to forfeit an assumption that the world and the game works exactly like you think it does. The Catalyst could be telling you that there's a blizzard outside, and you'd wear shorts and t-shirt and scream that its perfectly sunny just to spite the it. It could tell you that drinking seawater is bad, and you'd immediately shoot a bucket of the stuff and proclaim that its the best tasting and healthiest stuff you've ever had in your life. That's the level of hoops that you're jumping through to justify why you think the Catalyst is bad. Because, as the purpose of my statements have been, it means that you would have to acknowledge that you aren't as right as you think you are. That you aren't as entitled to happiness from the game as you think you are. That your entire argument comes down to being angry that you weren't validated by the game as others were. That the story didn't end the way you wanted it to because you aren't emotionally mature enough to handle less than happy endings. You're mad because you didn't get to have Shepard riding off into the sunset with the LI on the back of a horse. 

 

You aren't even willing to give the Catalyst a truly proper attempt at rational thought, to even step back and say 'Ok, let's discard all my notions of ideology and morality. Is there anything, anything at all, that holds truth or weight to what the Catalyst is saying?'

 

And the answer to that is yes. Yes, there is. The Catalyst does bring up a few points that are applicable to the universe at hand. The Catalyst is right about a few things. And the other things? Given some thought, you can make connections between the veracity of the knowledge that the Catalyst presents and its arguments. You start to gain an understanding of its point of view and ideology. You start to make sense of what its shooting for and where its coming from. And you learn that if you stop looking at things from one point of view, you might start to see a reason for why it does what it does and how it is justifiable by a subjectivist and relativist standard.

 

I don't need to respond with such a direct insult of my own. I can do better. And I have done better.

[prosthetic soul]

I think I'm done debating with you god.  You can continue thinking the starbrat has a place in the ending and is actually a well thought out character.  I believe you're utterly wrong but you're entitled to that opinion.  I for one am weary of arguing with someone who is arrogant enough to think his opinion is fact.  You won't change my mind, I Wont' change your mind.  Let's agree to disagree. 

[KaiserShep]

And then we have Destroy. It's the simplest and the most straight-forward, but with the greatest cost. While we get rid of the Reapers once and for all, and Shepard lives, it comes at the cost of the only friendly synthetics we've ever known: the Geth and EDI. If we lose them, what happens then? Do we simply avoid making new AI? We know this is inevitable. And what if we make the same mistakes again? The pattern has repeated itself time and time again. What if the Geth and EDI are the one in a billion shot we have for a true peace between organics and synthetics, and Shepard decides to blow it by choosing Destroy. What kind of example would that set for future AI, should they find out what organics decided to do to their AI ancestors when it came down to it?

 

The robots of the future might assume, but a smart Shepard would basically keep the details to herself.

 

who am I kidding? She'll tell everybody :/

[The Heretic of Time]

Ugh. 

 

 

Spoiler

I'd pick MEHEM

 

I'm disappointed in you Chronoid. You always seemed like a rational smart fella, but MEHEM is for children and plebs. I thought you were better than that man.

[Dantriges]

Well, it gets rid of Holokid and the Normandy shore leave on the planet of nowhere.

[Linkenski]

Any arbitrary plot-development that left you with three completely undesirable choices would be the same. That does not make it good or even enjoyable.

 

I like the concept of evil vs lesser evil as opposed to good vs bad, but I really strongly and almost violently hate awful vs just as awful

 

I could've given the end choice a little bit of credit had it at least made the reason for giving me this dilemma seem compelling but it doesn't. One choice was foreshadowed from the start but I never understood why anyone would want it (Control) and the other was also foreshadowed but now it has a negative connotation because for contrived reasons it has a selective downside that kills my best synthetic friends but not my pc or our practical tech (Destroy) and an entirely new choice is revealed that wasn't foreshadowed throughout the game at all, and it only relates to the issue presented within the last 10 minutes that is stated to be absolute but we have no context or indication that it would ever be true (Synthesis.

 

Part of me wants to say ME3 is brilliant. I mean, it's Mass Effect, My favorite franchise and its closing chapter, but that choice at the end was hard to decide for all the wrong reasons. It was anything but brilliant, and all for the sake of Casey Hudson wanting people to talk about it for years to come.

 

You got what you wanted Casey, and more than that.

[The Heretic of Time]

For me the "ideal" ending depends on the world state of my playthrough.

I never pick Synthesis, so that ending is discarted.

With synthesis out of the way, we have Control and Destroy left. I like Control and Destroy equally and what I choose depends on the world state, more specifically it depends on the the fate of the geth and krogan.

If the genophage is cured then I pick Control. I trust Wrex, but I don't trust the krogan. Picking control ensures than the krogan don't overstep their boundaries. If the krogan would pose a threat then CataShep can step in with the reaper police force.

If the krogan genophage is not cured then it's safe to pick Destroy and not having to worry about te krogan.

If the geth are also destroyed then it's easy to pick Destroy because in that case the only casualty will be EDI and I can live with that. But if the krogan genophage is cured then I'll always go for Control even with the geth gone.

If the geth are still alive then picking Control is the more merciful choice. You'll give the geth a chance to co-exist peacefully and if for whatever reason the geth overstep their boundaries then once again CataShep and the reaper police force can step in and destroy the geth.

[prosthetic soul]

I'm disappointed in you Chronoid. You always seemed like a rational smart fella, but MEHEM is for children and plebs. I thought you were better than that man.

Ouch. Very ouch. You don't mince words do you?

 

To be quite honest though, I never played Mass Effect 3 for PC though because Bioware was too incompetent to incorporate gamepad controls.  So I never actually chose MEHEM.  Truth be told, anything could be put in place of Bioware's established "endings" and it would be just as canon. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Ouch. Very ouch. You don't mince words do you?

 

To be quite honest though, I never played Mass Effect 3 for PC though because Bioware was too incompetent to incorporate gamepad controls.  So I never actually chose MEHEM.  Truth be told, anything could be put in place of Bioware's established "endings" and it would be just as canon. 

 

Just ignore the kid's ramblings, pick Control or Destroy and be done with it. That's how I roll.

[AlanC9]

Ouch. Very ouch. You don't mince words do you?
 
To be quite honest though, I never played Mass Effect 3 for PC though because Bioware was too incompetent to incorporate gamepad controls.  So I never actually chose MEHEM.  Truth be told, anything could be put in place of Bioware's established "endings" and it would be just as canon.

Gamepad? Why do you prefer having bad aim?