You can always "Control" the Reapers into destroying themselves. Accomplishing Destroy without as much of the draw backs.
There are 2 things that would get me to pick control
1) When the former human known as Shepard turned catalyst part 2 mentions he/she will help rebuild the galaxy and says it will fly the reapers into the nearest sun
2) a slide showing the reapers are flying into a sun
Since the control ending doesn't have that, I will always pick destroy
There are 2 things that would get me to pick control
1) When the former human known as Shepard turned catalyst part 2 mentions he/she will help rebuild the galaxy and says it will fly the reapers into the nearest sun
2) a slide showing the reapers are flying into a sun
Since the control ending doesn't have that, I will always pick destroy
The thing that I find most disconcerting about the Control ending is the voice shift. It sounds like a combination of Shepard + Harbinger, and then the scene cuts from Shepard in the white space to a Reaper. So I don't actually know what Shepard is anymore. Even in the dialogue he refers to himself as a different person. If Shepard did tell the Reapers to fly into the sun, what is Shepard then? Who is he controlling? I just don't trust a Shepard with the Control ending, Paragon or Renegade. There are too many variables, and it's far too much power.
The thing that I find most disconcerting about the Control ending is the voice shift. It sounds like a combination of Shepard + Harbinger, and then the scene cuts from Shepard in the white space to a Reaper. So I don't actually know what Shepard is anymore. Even in the dialogue he refers to himself as a different person. If Shepard did tell the Reapers to fly into the sun, what is Shepard then? Who is he controlling? I just don't trust a Shepard with the Control ending, Paragon or Renegade. There are too many variables, and it's far too much power.
Which IMO fits what's supposed to have happened very well (probably the best-crafted of the EC endings) but doesn't give me confidence.
Which IMO fits what's supposed to have happened very well (probably the best-crafted of the EC endings) but doesn't give me confidence.
I agree that it does fit, but it seems to go beyond Shepard's question of, "So the Reapers will obey me?" And he ends up talking about galactic civilization as a whole and being a guardian. I got a very "Benevolent Dictator" vibe from it, which, no matter how you want to spin it, is still dictatorship.
The thing that I find most disconcerting about the Control ending is the voice shift. It sounds like a combination of Shepard + Harbinger, and then the scene cuts from Shepard in the white space to a Reaper. So I don't actually know what Shepard is anymore. Even in the dialogue he refers to himself as a different person. If Shepard did tell the Reapers to fly into the sun, what is Shepard then? Who is he controlling? I just don't trust a Shepard with the Control ending, Paragon or Renegade. There are too many variables, and it's far too much power.
Pre-EC, Control was "my" ending choice (if I had to pick one). Shepard's speech is what makes me dislike the EC version.
Why would anyone pick Control or Synthesis?
Having the reapers around in any way shape or form is a really BAD IDEA.
The only way to get rid of the reapers is to destroy them.
Unless you think outside the box and see the ending as something a little more cerebral......
Having the reapers around in any way shape or form is a really BAD IDEA.
Why? Because you think they'll start harvesting again? Remember that it's the Intelligence that makes them harvest.
In Control, the Intelligence is gone and Shepard controls the Reapers, so unless your Shepard wants to harvest there will be no harvest.
In Synthesis, the Intelligence's purpose is fulfilled, why would it harvest again?
Oh right.... you believe starjar? Really? Welcome to Indoctrination Central.
Oh right.... you believe starjar? Really? Welcome to Indoctrination Central.
I guess you didn't get the note that the ending is so open that you can let happen whatever you want for your character and the future of everyone else 
Oh right.... you believe starjar? Really? Welcome to Indoctrination Central.
I guess you didn't get the note that the ending is so open that you can let happen whatever you want for your character and the future of everyone else
yeah. you see that's the part that I have a real problem with 'if' it is indeed the end of shepards story. You have multiple endings so nothing is decided. The gameplay rewards players for maxing out their EMS etc.. that choose 'destroy' with a shepard breath scene.
Not taking into account Control or Synthesis (hey if you like them fair enough but imo if reapers survive you are indoctrinated... again imo)
Sympathy for the devil gets humanity wiped. That's my take on it. Why does anyone think letting the reapers survive is a good idea?
A singular story imo cannot have multiple possibile endings. It just does not make any sense.
Starjar makes no sense. A catalyst is a force for change, the only force for change in that decision chamber is shepard.
Again imo. Interesting how even after all this time peeps still think about bloody starjar.
Synthesis...Let's make friends with the reapers. Good Idea, ignoring the fact they have killed trillions of sentient beings.
Control... Good idea, lets become a reaper, overseer of the last remnants of humanity stored within the reaper itself. Brilliant.
Destroy. Destroy Reapers. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. The reapers are gone. Reaper threat for this and all future generations solved.
You have multiple endings so nothing is decided.
That was exactly my point. It can go any way (the player wants).
Why does anyone think letting the reapers survive is a good idea?
Every person is different, every person has their own reasons why it is or is not a good idea. Each Shepard can be different if you really roleplay one.
A singular story imo cannot have multiple possibile endings. It just does not make any sense.
I'm not really sure what you want to tell me here. You mean it's silly that you can go 3 different ways (or 4 counting Refuse)?
Again imo. Interesting how even after all this time peeps still think about bloody starjar.
Synthesis...Let's make friends with the reapers. Good Idea, ignoring the fact they have killed trillions of sentient beings.
Control... Good idea, lets become a reaper, overseer of the last remnants of humanity stored within the reaper itself. Brilliant.
Destroy. Destroy Reapers. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. The reapers are gone. Reaper threat for this and all future generations solved.
You say "imo". Yes, it's your opinion, and that's fine. Other players have theirs, which is just as fine.
And does it really surprise you people are still talking about the Catalyst? There are new players, I'm only in 1 1/2 years for ME myself, and have finished ME3 only in February this year. So old and new players will still discuss such things. Especially since the ending is not clear, there's a lot to interpret, different ideas, different perceptions, different opinions.
I also like Destroy best and picked it every time now after trying out Synthesis in my first run, but that doesn't mean I have to dismiss other player's reasoning for picking Synthesis or Control. There are some interesting ideas going around. That's why I said the ending is so open. While you have your own view on what will happen, another player will have a very different view on this and it's still just as valid.
Oh right.... you believe starjar? Really? Welcome to Indoctrination Central.
Why would anyone pick Control or Synthesis?
Having the reapers around in any way shape or form is a really BAD IDEA.
The only way to get rid of the reapers is to destroy them.
Unless you think outside the box and see the ending as something a little more cerebral......
That is the biggest problem I have with Control & Synthesis from a roleplaying perspective. The player might feel safe in choosing either option, knowing that isn't going to trigger a critical mission failure screen, but Shepard should feel much less secure in choosing any option that leaves the Reaper fleet alive and fully operational. The two choices that result in Reaper survival, also come packaged with the request that Shepard kill himself/herself first.
That is the biggest problem I have with Control & Synthesis from a roleplaying perspective. The player might feel safe in choosing either option, knowing that isn't going to trigger a critical mission failure screen, but Shepard should feel much less secure in choosing any option that leaves the Reaper fleet alive and fully operational. The two choices that result in Reaper survival, also come packaged with the request that Shepard kill himself/herself first.
Indeed. In Synthesis or Control Shepard is told he or she will die. Why would Shepard throw his or her life away without any guarantees? Would you?
There are no guarantees. Even with Destroy. However if you think about it the tube is obviously the way to win.
I tend to think back to Mass Effect 2 when making the decision. It's not really hard when you think about it. Shepard destroyed the tubes of the Human Reaper which imo prevented them from taking control of him bodily. The Collectors were then no good to the reapers as that strategy would no longer work, so they go for his mind. Destroying the tube starjar offers (although tries to talk Shepard into suicide at the same time because it'd be better if shepard were dead....) destroys the reapers hold over shepards mind.
He wakes up.
How is this not a win since we are all Shepard one way or another?
He wakes up.
How is this not a win since we are all Shepard one way or another?
If you metagame, sure.
But your Shepard shouldn't know that he/she wakes up with high enough EMS when picking Destroy. The Catalyst even implies Shepard could die/is targeted by the Crucible due to being partly synthetic.
So, Shepard has 3 choices that seemingly kill him/her all... Just saying.
If you metagame, sure.
But your Shepard shouldn't know that he/she wakes up with high enough EMS when picking Destroy. The Catalyst even implies Shepard could die/is targeted by the Crucible due to being partly synthetic.
So, Shepard has 3 choices that seemingly kill him/her all... Just saying.
Well, there are 2 that definitely kill Shepard, and one that maybe kills him. That's still heavily weighted towards the third.
If you metagame, sure.
But your Shepard shouldn't know that he/she wakes up with high enough EMS when picking Destroy. The Catalyst even implies Shepard could die/is targeted by the Crucible due to being partly synthetic.
So, Shepard has 3 choices that seemingly kill him/her all... Just saying.
Actually the third choice (destroy) is in no way guaranteed to kill shepard, just the synthetic parts of him. For all you know that could just be the bolts holding him together.
Well, there are 2 that definitely kill Shepard, and one that maybe kills him. That's still heavily weighted towards the third.
Actually the third choice (destroy) is in no way guaranteed to kill shepard, just the synthetic parts of him. For all you know that could just be the bolts holding him together.
Shepard doesn't know the exact outcome of Destroy. We didn't know either when playing it for the first time. That's what I'm aiming at. You can't be sure you survive this or not (hell, it wasn't even possible without playing MP pre-EC).
And as I said before, different Shepards have different reasoning. My first Shepard had no problem with sacrificing himself. If this is a problem for you... well, that's ok and I can get that.
I just don't see this "Destroy is the best option because X". The "best" option is something that each player has to decide for themselves.
Shepard doesn't know the exact outcome of Destroy. We didn't know either when playing it for the first time. That's what I'm aiming at. You can't be sure you survive this or not (hell, it wasn't even possible without playing MP pre-EC).
And as I said before, different Shepards have different reasoning. My first Shepard had no problem with sacrificing himself. If this is a problem for you... well, that's ok and I can get that.
I just don't see this "Destroy is the best option because X". The "best" option is something that each player has to decide for themselves.
https://www.youtube....h?v=6_RGX1ujGUU
I dunno if it's about options though. Right or wrong? I get the feeling we'll find out at the beginning of ME : Andromeda.
I dunno if it's about options though. Right or wrong? I get the feeling we'll find out at the beginning of ME : Andromeda.
I thought MEA will be set a long time from ME3 in order to avoid having to address each ending? Anyway, we'll see.
As it is, I don't see a wrong or right choice in the ending. All are valid choices depending on each player's reasoning as to why they choose what they choose.
I thought MEA will be set a long time from ME3 in order to avoid having to address each ending? Anyway, we'll see.
They don't really need to set it well into the future to avoid 'the ending' do they? As to why they are in Andromeda, I would assume (based on the theories doing the rounds) that the reapers may indeed 'win' in 'all' endings, hence why we've legged it.
Again. We'll have to wait and see.
They don't really need to set it well into the future to avoid 'the ending' do they?
It seems they do though. http://blog.bioware....fect-andromeda/
"While we aren’t ready to go into too many details just yet, as you saw in the trailer and can tell by the name, this game is very much a new adventure, taking place far away from and long after the events of the original trilogy."
But yes, time will tell. I'm very curious if they address the endings at all.
And you believe the Intelligence when it tells you that shooting a tube will destroy the Reapers? You believe parts of what it says, but not the rest because you don't agree with it? That's hypocrite.
No, but without further information then trusting it on that is as good as trusting to luck. It looks like it believes what it says but it's not exactly all there in the head. IIRC it doesn't actually tell you what to do to activate a particular choice though.
Shepard doesn't know the exact outcome of Destroy. We didn't know either when playing it for the first time. That's what I'm aiming at. You can't be sure you survive this or not (hell, it wasn't even possible without playing MP pre-EC).
And as I said before, different Shepards have different reasoning. My first Shepard had no problem with sacrificing himself. If this is a problem for you... well, that's ok and I can get that.
I just don't see this "Destroy is the best option because X". The "best" option is something that each player has to decide for themselves.
One of the major flaws with the writing of Mass Effect 3's endings was that from an in universe perspective, Shepard should be reluctant to trust anything the Catalyst says. It is the A.I. that created the Reapers, whom it is also joined with in a sort of gestalt intelligence, and is responsible for both countless acts of xenocide and the attempted annihilation of Shepard's own civilization. The decision to have the choices that resolve the Reaper War be presented by the archvillain was not one that was well thought out. It puts Shepard into a scenario where he or she must place some trust in a mass murdering machine that realistically, would not be trusted. That is as much a flaw with Destroy as it is the other two choices.
That being said, from an in universe perspective Control and Synthesis are much larger leaps of faith in that it requires trusting that Shepard's death would not be in vain, that he/she isn't just being manipulated into committing suicide by the mass murdering machine, and that the Reapers will withdraw and never again attempt to annihilate galactic civilization. That is a much larger leap of faith than taking the option that might destroy the Catalyst and the Reapers and doesn't come packaged with the prerequisite that Shepard commit suicide.
Do góry