I didn't make my choice "logically", I went with what choice I liked. I didn't like destruction because it didn't just destroy the reapers. It destroys so much more. My Shep didn't want to be the cause of mass genocide.
I chose synthesis because it seemed to promise the most interesting and exciting future. ESPECIALLY if by some miracle your choice impacts ME4, which I doubt, but what if?
.....
You never point out how I'm wrong. You make excuses why it was acceptable there but not acceptable else were. You demand the AI to show proof of how it got it's information but accept Vigil's statement without demanding the same proof of how he would gain it. Even though his knowledge of events directly contradicts all information we have so far. Even going as far to contradict the very words he states. Communication can not be crippled across the empire and yet it some how is able to track Reaper movements across the entire galaxy. Yet some how you can't accept the AI on the Citadel is capable of having the knowledge that conflict between organic and synthetic is inevitable and in the end organics would be wiped off the galaxy.
The AI on the Citadel is a passive force. It came to it's conclusion and created the Reapers to be the active force. It sits back and watches and studies. It doesn't need to be in control of the Citadel any more then your parents need to drive ever where or make decisions for you when you are a full grown adult. Or if you want to think of it another way. The Manager/Supervisor doesn't do the job for the people under his/her care. There are many a time I would prefer my manager to do my job for me or correct my small mistakes. But unless it was a colossal grand **** up they would have me correct my own mistakes I make. Every action of Sovergin and Harbinger with Collectors are **** ups. But none of them directly compromise the over all plan of the Harvest. The Catalyst only actually steps in with Shepard when it finally sees that it's plan is starting to fail. Not from anything on his side but because Organics were changing and finding way around the system he had in place that would in time destroy it.
That is the only time it took an active role to prevent everything it worked for from coming undone by offering new options for how to proceed to Shepard. The single person who altered the set up the most.
The other thing is that much of what Vigil says is speculation, which is obvious when you *pay attention to the words its using*.
The Catalyst tries to present its argument as fact, but does not provide any evidence to back up its argument. Further, the Catalyst's argument can be DIRECTLY contradicted by the game narrative.
You cannot take the Catalyst at face value. If you do, you lose the meta game no matter which ending you choose.
The Catalyst is NOT Mr. Exposition. The Catalyst is the antagonist of Mass Effect 3, the driving force behind the Reapers.
IT IS ACTIVELY HOSTILE TO SHEPARD.
Its goal is to "preserve all life" and it does that by "allowing new life to arise, storing the old life in Reaper form." Its objectives are to continue the cycle, find a more efficient way to turn life into Reapers, and to preserve the work it's already accomplished, i.e. keep the Reapers from being destroyed.
But the Catalyst doesn't have guns to enforce its will. The Catalyst for whatever reason doesn't have control over the Keepers. So the Catalyst fights using words and attempts to achieve total victory through persuasion. It takes a calculated and desperate gamble that it can convince Shepard to listen and enact the total dominance of the Catalyst over the entire galaxy through Synthesis.
I thought about this some more and really none of the choices are logical. I'm supposed to make a snap decision based on a short conversation with what appears to be a ghost of a little boy that will affect the lives of everyone in the galaxy? I've no way to ascertain the truth of anything this thing says. Some of the things it says are wrong or contradictory. How or where would you apply logic? Best you can do is choose the outcome you think is the best and then hope you're right.
That being said, if we do take the catalyst at face value, how is the destruction choice logical? If the catalyst is still driven to find a solution to it's ridiculous claim that synthetics will always rise up against their creators, why does it even offer destruction as a choice if it thinks that it would just lead to the cycle starting up again? How is mass genocide, the destruction of the galactic civilization (due to the loss of the mass relays) and the loss of all the accumulated knowledge of previous galactic civilizations logical?
It's a gamble. The Catalyst is trying to fool Shepard into enacting Synthesis, but like any good trick, it has to provide alternatives to follow. There's a reason it presents Destroy first, and it presents Destroy in the worst light of the three choices. It's trying to make the choices that let it accomplish its objectives more attractive.
It portrays Destroy as the worst choice, Control as a better choice, and Synthesis as the best choice, because it has the primary win condition of dominating the galaxy by making everything part of the Reaper network and its secondary win condition is to preserve the Reapers.
It's a gamble. The Catalyst is trying to fool Shepard into enacting Synthesis, but like any good trick, it has to provide alternatives to follow. There's a reason it presents Destroy first, and it presents Destroy in the worst light of the three choices. It's trying to make the choices that let it accomplish its objectives more attractive.
It portrays Destroy as the worst choice, Control as a better choice, and Synthesis as the best choice, because it has the primary win condition of dominating the galaxy by making everything part of the Reaper network and its secondary win condition is to preserve the Reapers.
That's basically it. Catalyst's claims can be summed up by this: 'Sure, you can destroy us, but you don't really want to do it, do you? Here, you can try to control us instead. You will die in doing so and you won't be there to care if you failed. Or better, pick Synthesis. It cannot be forced but you will actually do exactly that. Accomplish our goal and turn everyone into a mix between organic and synthetic. But instead of implanting organics with robotics we will do it with space magic and reaper tech! Yes, Reapers will still be around indoctrinating everyone but who cares? Your pilot can bang your AI sexbot without breaking his bones! It's a win-win!". So much bs coming from the Catalyst. And some people even agree with this child of light.
Let's look at Synthesis. Remember the side-quest "Citadel: Family Matter"? It revolved around a couple arguing whether Rebekah should do a gene therapy for her unborn child or not. You can either support Michael or Rebekah. From a pragmatic point of view, Michael is right. Gene-therapy can indeed prevent the development of a heart decease. But the thing is, it's Rebekah's choice. It's her baby. And she has every right to do what she considers best. You can persuade her, sure. But it won't change the fact that it's her choice. It would be illegal to expose her child to a gene therapy without her knowledge or approval. And Synthesis does exactly that on a galactic scale. You don't persuade each and every person before forcing the change on them. You change them and they have to deal with it. It doesn't matter that in the end it is a good outcome. Shepard doesn't know that. Synthesis is a big no-no. This kind of change requires at least a vote.
And Control? What was the point of fighting Cerberus for a whole ME3 then if you agree with TIM in the end? Why not just leave them alone and let them develop the means to control the Reapers? What was the point of the last confrontation between TIM and Shepard? No matter what kind of Shepard you are, it's clear that you tell him "You can't, can you? They won't let you do it." And why would they let Shepard do it? Because he's not indoctrinated? Weak excuse. But sure, let's pretend that they indeed let Shepard control them. From the pragmatic point it is a cool option. You make Reapers leave and rebuild everything they have destroyed. But...if that works...how does anyone know that Reapers are 'good' now? They may stop their attacks but they're still out there. It's like seeing the geth for quarians prior to ME3. They're still terryfied and hostile. Reapers may not attack, but organics will still live in fear that one day they will start the harvest once again. What will Catalyst-Shepard do once the united fleets decide to destroy the Reapers anyway? Can Catalyst-Shepard face the true death and make reapers self-destruct? There's no way to be sure that Catalyst-Shepard has values of the true Shepard.
And another thing. Some people say that if you pick Destroy, you don't resolve the conflict between organics and synthetics. Now wait a minute. There was never a plot in ME1 and 2 that revolved around the conflict between organics and synthetics. In fact, every plot-point contradicted it. In ME1 AI were forbidden (conflict solved already). Quarian and Geth war happened because quarians screwed up, not because geth rebelled. In ME2 we learned that AI can be on our side. And in ME3 we can even stop the Geth-Quarian war. During the whole trilogy there was only one conflict: Reapers vs organics. And suddenly in the end of ME3 our goal has changed from destroying the Reapers to solving some organic-synthetic conflict that we've never heared of? Nicely done, Catalyst.
It's a gamble. The Catalyst is trying to fool Shepard into enacting Synthesis, but like any good trick, it has to provide alternatives to follow. There's a reason it presents Destroy first, and it presents Destroy in the worst light of the three choices. It's trying to make the choices that let it accomplish its objectives more attractive.
It portrays Destroy as the worst choice, Control as a better choice, and Synthesis as the best choice, because it has the primary win condition of dominating the galaxy by making everything part of the Reaper network and its secondary win condition is to preserve the Reapers.
You never point out how I'm wrong. You make excuses why it was acceptable there but not acceptable else were.
Yeah, sometimes things work under certain circumstances and not others. Imagine that. I’ve done it repeatedly. Like them or not, those “excuses” are why you’re wrong so you contradict yourself.
You demand the AI to show proof of how it got it's information but accept Vigil's statement without demanding the same proof of how he would gain it. Even though his knowledge of events directly contradicts all information we have so far. Even going as far to contradict the very words he states. Communication can not be crippled across the empire and yet it some how is able to track Reaper movements across the entire galaxy. Yet some how you can't accept the AI on the Citadel is capable of having the knowledge that conflict between organic and synthetic is inevitable and in the end organics would be wiped off the galaxy.
The reason I demand evidence from the Catalyst is that it is the one trying to convince me to change my plan from the first game, destroy the Reapers, and join it in Synthesis. It is making a claim which is not only not backed up by events of the series, but is contradicted by several. Vigil is just there to pass on information that has to do with the Reapers generally, but little to do with the immediate goal. While I can question how he knows these things in-universe (I understand it from a writing standpoint) nothing in the game contradicts what Vigil says.
The AI on the Citadel is a passive force. It came to it's conclusion and created the Reapers to be the active force. It sits back and watches and studies. It doesn't need to be in control of the Citadel any more then your parents need to drive ever where or make decisions for you when you are a full grown adult. Or if you want to think of it another way. The Manager/Supervisor doesn't do the job for the people under his/her care. There are many a time I would prefer my manager to do my job for me or correct my small mistakes. But unless it was a colossal grand **** up they would have me correct my own mistakes I make. Every action of Sovergin and Harbinger with Collectors are **** ups. But none of them directly compromise the over all plan of the Harvest. The Catalyst only actually steps in with Shepard when it finally sees that it's plan is starting to fail. Not from anything on his side but because Organics were changing and finding way around the system he had in place that would in time destroy it.
The Citadel is not the Reapers so your analogy to parents and children fails. I can actually use it well though. In the event I lock myself out of the house, my parents can open the door and let me in. Also, even if you’re right that the Catalyst doesn’t actively control the Reapers, and you may be given the difference between Harbinger and Sovereign, it can. Otherwise the Control option makes no sense. The Catalyst tells Shepard the Reapers will obey him.
The Catalyst doesn’t see its plan failing in terms of being stopped; it sees that it is no longer applicable to the changed situation. It now has more options that it didn’t have before. In the case of high EMS, Synthesis is now on the table where it formerly was not.
The other thing is that much of what Vigil says is speculation, which is obvious when you *pay attention to the words its using*.
Some is, some isn’t. Vigil will tell you when he is speculating by saying something like "We have only theories." Other times he makes affirmative statements.
As a side point, unlike Youtube, just hit ctrl-b for bold.
You cannot take the Catalyst at face value. If you do, you lose the meta game no matter which ending you choose.
That depends on who “you” is. I, the player, took him at face value because I knew everything he was saying was true as far as the game was concerned. I knew I was at the end, I saw the exposition for what it was, and chose Destroy.
The Catalyst is NOT Mr. Exposition. The Catalyst is the antagonist of Mass Effect 3, the driving force behind the Reapers.
IT IS ACTIVELY HOSTILE TO SHEPARD.
Those are not mutually exclusive. The Catalyst is the antagonist because it shows up and says “yeah I control everything.” However, all it actually does in the open is spew exposition at you to reframe the situation and explain the ending choices. It has no other narrative role. That it is hostile is irrelevant. While it has a greater role in the overall story, it is Mr. Exposition in that final scene.
Its goal is to "preserve all life" and it does that by "allowing new life to arise, storing the old life in Reaper form." Its objectives are to continue the cycle, find a more efficient way to turn life into Reapers, and to preserve the work it's already accomplished, i.e. keep the Reapers from being destroyed.
But the Catalyst doesn't have guns to enforce its will. The Catalyst for whatever reason doesn't have control over the Keepers. So the Catalyst fights using words and attempts to achieve total victory through persuasion. It takes a calculated and desperate gamble that it can convince Shepard to listen and enact the total dominance of the Catalyst over the entire galaxy through Synthesis.
Those are all parts of its sub-optimal solution but not its overall goal. It wants Synthesis. The Crucible somehow makes it possible, Shepard is somehow ready, and Shepard has to choose it because “it is not something that can be forced.”
I thought about this some more and really none of the choices are logical. I'm supposed to make a snap decision based on a short conversation with what appears to be a ghost of a little boy that will affect the lives of everyone in the galaxy? I've no way to ascertain the truth of anything this thing says. Some of the things it says are wrong or contradictory. How or where would you apply logic? Best you can do is choose the outcome you think is the best and then hope you're right.
This is true, but, unlike the other options, Destroy is pretty clear. The only thing that is vague is who exactly will be affected beyond EDI and the Geth, which is admittedly still a big deal.
That being said, if we do take the catalyst at face value, how is the destruction choice logical? If the catalyst is still driven to find a solution to it's ridiculous claim that synthetics will always rise up against their creators, why does it even offer destruction as a choice if it thinks that it would just lead to the cycle starting up again? How is mass genocide, the destruction of the galactic civilization (due to the loss of the mass relays) and the loss of all the accumulated knowledge of previous galactic civilizations logical?
It’s logical because Destroying the Reapers was the objective. The best answer to why it offers the choice is because in order for you to choose Synthesis, you have to have other options. Beyond that, I can’t think of an in-universe answer.
The Relays are destroyed in all three choices and after the EC are rebuilt in all three. There is no value ever given to the accumulated knowledge of the previous civilizations, nor any indication that it is accessible. All you have is a line from EDI in the Synthesis epilogue, making this an argument after the fact.
And another thing. Some people say that if you pick Destroy, you don't resolve the conflict between organics and synthetics. Now wait a minute. There was never a plot in ME1 and 2 that revolved around the conflict between organics and synthetics. In fact, every plot-point contradicted it. In ME1 AI were forbidden (conflict solved already). Quarian and Geth war happened because quarians screwed up, not because geth rebelled. In ME2 we learned that AI can be on our side. And in ME3 we can even stop the Geth-Quarian war. During the whole trilogy there was only one conflict: Reapers vs organics. And suddenly in the end of ME3 our goal has changed from destroying the Reapers to solving some organic-synthetic conflict that we've never heared of? Nicely done, Catalyst.
All well said, but I want to focus on this part. Some people point to the Reapers to say it was always Synthetics vs Organics (forget that we later learn that Reapers are cyborgs). It’s Reapers, specifically, not Synthetics generally, that are against Organics.
All the choices are a gamble, as Shepard believed that getting the Crucible to dock with the Citadel solved the problem; not speaking with the Catalyst. That said, Synthesis is the presented solution that fixes more issues, and offers more prosperity for all life; a gamble worth taking, it appears....
That's an argument after the fact. Destroy has the least potential problems, least unfortunate implications, and fits best with the themes and plots of the series. The epilogue should have included mourning that Synthetics like EDI and potentially the Geth were sacrificed. The only other negative is that it doesn't fix an imaginary problem not present in the series.
That's an argument after the fact. Destroy has the least potential problems, least unfortunate implications, and fits best with the themes and plots of the series.
Which really, REALLY says something about how bad these endings are. 
Which really, REALLY says something about how bad these endings are.
Natureguy, the Catalyst is a character with an agenda of its own. Everything it says is colored with its assumptions and expectations and goals.
It is an unreliable narrator outside of the observed and observable facts that it presents: "Reapers exist, they harvest life in order to make more Reapers."
But based on presentation alone, Synthesis also wins. Destroy will leave things in ruins, and informed that the cycle will happen again. Whether or not one believes the Catalyst, the better ending for all life is Synthesis.
At high EMS, Destroy doesn't leave things in ruins any more than Synthesis. The cycle won't happen again because the Reapers are gone. Conflict might come back, but welcome to existence.
Natureguy, the Catalyst is a character with an agenda of its own. Everything it says is colored with its assumptions and expectations and goals.
It is an unreliable narrator outside of the observed and observable facts that it presents: "Reapers exist, they harvest life in order to make more Reapers."
Oh absolutely, but all of that is in-universe. That applies to Shepard. As a player, though, I knew it was telling the truth due to context, such as knowing I was at the end and my choices were being framed. So as stupid as its claimed objectives are, at least when looking at its ways of accomplishing those objectives, I knew it was what the Catalyst said it was.
But based on presentation alone, Synthesis also wins. Destroy will leave things in ruins, and informed that the cycle will happen again. Whether or not one believes the Catalyst, the better ending for all life is Synthesis.
Destroy genocides all synthetic life, but the High EMS version does not leave tings in ruins for those who survive.
And the Catalyst is a broken machine spouting BS. I don't believe in inevitable cycles, and have seen no compelling evidence to change my mind.
But the genocide makes Destroy a non-starter for me. Even as the "least evil" option.
But based on presentation alone, Synthesis also wins. Destroy will leave things in ruins, and informed that the cycle will happen again. Whether or not one believes the Catalyst, the better ending for all life is Synthesis.
Based on presentation alone, the Catalyst is trying to sell Shepard on Synthesis, which is usually a sign that it's a scam of some kind.
Look, every other choice, the Catalyst says something different if you agree with the choice or if you disagree with the choice. Destroy, it disapproves of no matter which way you go, but it says different things based on whether you are inclined towards it or whether you want to explore other options.
Control, it is accepting of your choice if you agree and it points out the personal downside of it if you disagree.
Synthesis? It says *the exact same thing* regardless of whether you say you are unsure or whether you reject it outright.
On a meta level, this is Casey Hudson trying to convince the player to make Shepard commit suicide in the same sort of way that the player made Shepard convince Saren to commit suicide in the first game.
It's also an attempt to Torch the Franchise and Run, an attempt which got aborted when upper management realized how much damage it was doing to Bioware's reputation as a game developer.
On a meta level, this is Casey Hudson trying to convince the player to make Shepard commit suicide in the same sort of way that the player made Shepard convince Saren to commit suicide in the first game.
And potentially TIM just moments ago.
Based on presentation alone, the Catalyst is trying to sell Shepard on Synthesis, which is usually a sign that it's a scam of some kind.
Look, every other choice, the Catalyst says something different if you agree with the choice or if you disagree with the choice. Destroy, it disapproves of no matter which way you go, but it says different things based on whether you are inclined towards it or whether you want to explore other options.
Control, it is accepting of your choice if you agree and it points out the personal downside of it if you disagree.
Synthesis? It says *the exact same thing* regardless of whether you say you are unsure or whether you reject it outright.
On a meta level, this is Casey Hudson trying to convince the player to make Shepard commit suicide in the same sort of way that the player made Shepard convince Saren to commit suicide in the first game.
It's also an attempt to Torch the Franchise and Run, an attempt which got aborted when upper management realized how much damage it was doing to Bioware's reputation as a game developer.
I think the only acceptable choice, in human terms...is the Destroy one. I didn t even hesitate.
Destroy genocides all synthetic life, but the High EMS version does not leave tings in ruins for those who survive.
And the Catalyst is a broken machine spouting BS. I don't believe in inevitable cycles, and have seen no compelling evidence to change my mind.
But the genocide makes Destroy a non-starter for me. Even as the "least evil" option.
It's not a genocide. it's a sacrifice. You don't actually plan to exterminate Geth/EDI. And if you're not convinced, not every geth gets destroyed. I don't see how geth software is deleted and can't be recovered. Some geth programs have been uploaded into quarian suits. It means they can be reuploaded into new platforms. If someone considers geth to be 'dead' then they don't know how the geth work. Destroy doesn't target all tech, just reaper tech and synthetic beings (lore says that, I don't know how that's possible without destroying all tech). Okay, I will assume that EDI and its AI Core on the Normandy was fried. And there are no more friendly AIs except Geth and EDI. In other words, the only synthetic that gets destroyed completely is EDI and some combat geth platforms (you can count them as soldier units, much like Alliance soldiers who gave their lives if you value synthetics that much). Yes, many synthetics burn their hardware. But it's certainly not a genocide but a really small sacrifice made to save the many.
there is no genocide when destroy is chosen
there is no genocide when destroy is chosen
Reckon synthetic life forms may differ on that....
the things can differ all it wants. I don't care. Besides, I destroyed the things back on Rannoch
the things can differ all it wants. I don't care. Besides, I destroyed the things back on Rannoch
Retour en haut